London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Hillingdon 1972

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Hillingdon]

This page requires JavaScript

A further 37 samples of milk were examined by the public health laboratory for the presence of antibiotics, all but one of which were found to be satisfactory. A total of 503 food and drug samples were examined of which 29 or 5-8 per cent were classed as unsatisfactory. Details of the action taken regarding the unsatisfactory samples are set out in the following table:

ProductNo.ContraventionAction taken
Sweet and sour pork1Excessive amount of gristle in the meatAdvice given to manufacturer
Sugar confectionery4Incorrectly labelled (2) Containing foreign matter (1)Label amended Warning letter sent
Cheese spread1Containing foreign matterProsecution awaiting hearing
Indian foods3Incorrectly labelledLabel altered in respect of the two samples Third sample investigation still proceeding
Flour confectionery2Incorrectly labelled Product fermentingAlterations made to label Stocks withdrawn
Bread1Containing foreign matterWarning letter sent
Canned sausages4Deficient in meat (3)2 prosecutions taken. Fines of £25 and £10 imposed in each case. 1 warning letter sent
Incorrectly describedWhile label was considered inaccurate there was insufficient evidence to justify legal proceedings
Lobster3Incorrectly described3 prosecutions taken 1 case dismissed, second case a fine of £5, costs £5 Third case £20 and £18 costs on each of the two defendants
Dessert mix2Incorrectly labelledLabels amended
Soup mix1Incorrectly labelledLabel amended
Imported figs1Incorrectly labelledAdvice given re: labelling
Baby food1Incorrectly labelledInvestigations continuing
Cheese1Incorrectly labelledInvestigations continuing
Milk3Low fat contentFarm sample, advice given regarding bulk
mixing of supply.

Legal Proceedings
The average period between the matter being reported for legal proceedings and the court
hearing is six months during which time, in the case of food hygiene contraventions, the premises
may continue to sell food under dirty conditions. In certain cases where the charges are defended and
adjournments of the hearing obtained, this interval may be considerably longer. In view of this and
the fact that it is obviously in the interest of both the proprietor and his customer that money is
better spent in affecting improvements rather than in paying fines, every effort is made to obtain
the necessary remedial action without resort to prosecution. There are however cases where it is
not possible to effect improvement except by formal action and in order to speed the process of
dealing with these unsatisfactory cases the Council agreed to recommend the inclusion in the
Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill 1973 of a clause enabling application to be made for
the closure of premises where contraventions of the Food Hygiene Regulations were likely to endanger
health. This clause would apply until the court had the opportunity of hearing the summonses
concerning the contravention.
73